TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 434
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ture of various capital goods and structures for supporting the capital goods. Some of these goods also have been used for repair and maintenance of machinery. Both the authorities below have upheld the demands. Hence, the present appeals. 2. I have heard Ms. Sukriti Das, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri H.C. Sainik, ld. AR for the Revenue. 3. The steel structural items have been used for fabrication and erection of various capital goods like material and equipment, chute, EOT cranes, boiler support for furnace etc. They have also been used to provide support for various capital goods installed in the factory. The department entertained the view that thes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Ltd. vide final order No. A/54016/2015 - SM (BR) dated 10/11/2015 ; (xii) M/s Thiru Arooran Sugars vs. CST, Chennai reported in 2015 - TIOL - 1734 - HC - MAD - CX. and (xiii) CCE, Raipur vs. Hi-Tech Power & Steel Ltd. reported in 2015 (315) E.L.T. 428 (Tri. - Del.) 5. The learned DR on the other hand relied on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Daya Sugar vs. CCE, Meerut - I reported in 2015 (316) E.L.T. 394 (All.). 6. The issue of Cenvat credit on structural items used in the fabrication of support structures for capital goods has been decided in favour of the appellants in many recent decisions including those cited by the learned Advocate. I find that identical issue has been decided....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... name of 'goods'. Hence, Revenue contends that these items used are outside the purview of capital goods or inputs. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court evolved 'user test' to answer the question whether the items falls within the purview of 'capital goods' and held that in the case of Rajasthan Spinning Mills (supra) that steel plates and MS channels used in the fabrication of chimney would fall within the ambit of 'capital goods'. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SLR Steels Ltd. [2012 (280) E.L.T. 176 (Kar.)] held as under : "7. A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it very clear though storage tanks may be immovable property and the pollution control equipment are included within the definition of "capital goods",....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of capital goods is constructed and steel and cement is used for such support, the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of Cenvat credit on the duty paid on such cement and steel. Therefore, there is no ambiguity in any of these provisions. When once a storage tank and pollution control equipment constitutes capital goods and any raw material purchased for construction of those goods, the duty paid could be utilized as a Cenvat credit by the assessee notwithstanding the fact that the storage tank is an immovable property." 8. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CCE v. India Cements Ltd. [2014 (310) E.L.T. 636 (Mad.)] held that MS plates, angles, channels, etc. used in the erection of various machineries such as electrostatic p....